What's the point of Barnes' Opening [1. f3], and what makes people think that Grob's Opening is bad?

To tygxc,

1. "knowing what moves to play before your opponents do is a time advantage." ++ A time advantage wins no games. There are famous examples: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1139797  After white's move 19, white had used 5 minutes and black 90 minutes. Guess who won...

This is missing half of what I said. Memorising moves gives you more time to think on more complicated positions (midgames, chains, endgames). Those will always be very different depending on your opponent. The start will be mostly the same all the time (e4 is very common, so response patterns will be used lots). You save time by memorising, and then spend it in more important times.

Karoly Honfi, in your example, blunders a rook by not looking deep enough. Honfi did not spend the time that they should've in the position. In this case, Honfi did not use the extra time that they had on thinking. Time advantages only pay off when used. Honfi did not use it.

Let's say that some Example Player 1 spends equal time thinking on his openings, midgames, and endgames. Example Player 2 spends less time on his openings, and more time on more complicated positions. Both have 30:00 on their time. Example Player 1 has less time to think through more complicated positions, while Example Player 2 does. Example Player 2 breezes through the opening stages with effective and memorised responses, while Example Player 1 thinks through every position with equal time. Example Player 1 wastes time, and cuts thinking short in more complicated positions because he spent more time thinking over easily memorisable opening positions.

In this example, the priorities are in the wrong place for Example Player 1. We can save time on our openings to spend for later positions, placing more priority on investigating what is usually different, instead of what is very similar all the time.

It is true that this advantage goes away in longer timed or untimed games, but time is always limited in some way, and it certainly is in most high-level competitions.

2. "I can't waste all my time looking for a good move" ++ You can and should invest time to find good moves.

True. But I'm talking about studying for the start of the game, not the rest. I save time in similar positions to spend in later, different, and more complicated positions. So, I can't waste all my time looking for a good move in easily memorisable opening positions.

3. "I should learn an opening and then memorise." ++ No. You can only postpone the moment you have to think yourself.

This pushes the sentence to extremes. I didn't mean that I should memorise my opening's midgames; there are too many different good moves that can be played. So it is true that I can only postpone the moment when I must read the board, but that's what I saved time for: reading the board in more complicated positions. Effective moves for simple opening positions can be memorised to give an advantage in more complicated positions.

4. "We can't waste all our time reading the board." ++ We can and should invest time to find good moves. A famous example: black had secretly studied 8...d5 for years. White was taken by surprise. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1095025

This is confusing me. This is a counterpoint to your own argument: Black studied! Black knew the answers without having to read the whole board for every position. Black knew what moves to play, instead of having to read the board more. That saved time for Black, and Black also knew tactics for it too. So studying helps for tactics and time.

5. "[1. e4 e5 2. Ba6] and [1. g4]. [2. Ba6] sacrifices a bishop for (apparent) nothing, meanwhile [1. g4 d4 2. c4], does." ++ 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is easier to win than 1 g4?, but both lose by force for white.

There are many examples of White winning with [1. g4]. Many of losing, too, but that's probably because the majority of Grob's Opening players played out of a challenge, and didn't study. Anyways, [1. e4 e5 Ba6] loses three points, [1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 Bxg4] loses one. Fritz's Gambit [3. c4] trades two pawns, but dooms a rook with a bishop after [4. Bxb7]. I find that it's a lot easier to win with a pawn that's easy to sacrifice for position, but also defend, than by straight out sacrificing a bishop for (apparent) nothing.

6. "Any logic with incomplete evidence is incomplete truth, which is not true." ++ 'Chess is a very logical game and it is the man who can reason most logically and profoundly in it that ought to win' - Capablanca

Hmm... 1 + x = Ans. Use logic with the incomplete evidence to find "Ans". Also, x = ?. Not everyone will get the same number for Ans. It will only be truly right if x is revealed. The x variable is needed to get one singular answer.

Capablanca was also talking about reading the whole board and reasoning through each branch farther than opponents. So, if I think through good moves for Grob's Opening farther than my opponents do, I ought to win. Study saves my time.

And, Capablanca was talking about midgames and endgames. If you think farther and make better moves than your opponent, then you win. But that's comparison to an opponent, not perfection.

Let's say that there's a scale from 0 to 10, 0 being that this player loses in two turns every single time, and 10 being that this player is playing at perfection. Let's say that someone's at a 6.5, and their opponent is at a 5. They probably beat their opponent. But that's because they were good enough. They've got enough logic to win. But we're talking about 10. Perfection. Not being skilled enough to win, being able to see or reason through everything.

The logic here:

If I drop a stone and there's nothing attached to it or pushing on it than gravity, and nothing in between it and the floor, and I'm on Earth, then it will hit the floor. I have enough evidence to state that fact.

If I play 1. g4, I won't lose all the time. I just need to be good enough to beat my opponent. My opponent will never be at a 10 (unless it's a bot that's solved chess), so I just need to be better.

In the same sense, we're batting around our reasons of whether 1. g4 or 1. f3 is better than the other. If one of us runs out of counterreasons, then the other person wins the argument. I doubt that one of us is going to totally solve chess (I tried to solve the whole branch of Anderssen's Opening since it's the first move listed in most chess encyclopaedias, and I gave up after turn 3 because of the lag and the unnecessary effort for one argument). We're probably not going to reach perfection with this argument; we just need to be better than the other to win. So let's reason this out: you haven't won this argument yet.

7. "Can I see the effectiveness of my chess moves without knowing all the ways it could end?" ++ Yes. By applying logic 1 e4 cannot be worse than 1 a4, 1 f3, or 1 g4?. Likewise 1 Nf3 cannot be worse than 1 Nh3. We know that without having a full branch. / "Grob's Opening games draw too." ++ No. 1 g4? loses by force just like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?

This is as if you've already won the argument. The logic is what we're talking about.

You can't say that we fully know the effectiveness of a chess move without the whole branch. There are many branches, but I'll use an easier example.

P1 plays a rook to a clear file, preparing to play a back rank mate. If his opponent decides to move his horse (which is away from that file), P1 wins. After that, his opponent takes his rook with a pawn. P1 did not know that branch, and is now at a 5-point disadvantage, and his opponent has two queens.

Sure, it's a lot simpler to see that branch. But without even just one of the possibilities, there's a huge problem for that. And, with scaling logic, earlier back, that rule must apply too. There may be major moves for [1. g4] that we do not know or have considered yet.

There was a game between Anderssen and Morphy that Anderssen lost. If Anderssen decided not to move the pawn on that one edge two spaces forward, then he wouldn't've been diagonally trapped by a queen threatening diagonally, and a rook threatening the back rank, and those two edge pawns. He could've won without that one move earlier. If someone saw that game in the middle of it, and saw Anderssen's attacking queen, close to the king, and only blocked by a bishop, could he conclude that, by looking very shortly forward, that Anderssen was going to win? No. He did not know the branches. He did not know the full extent of the way the game could've gone. Neither did Anderssen. That's why Anderssen lost.

Could I then conclude that 1. e4 is a bad opening, through this logic?

Adolf Anderssen, who was the World Chess Champion of time, lost with 1. e4.

Really good players can still lose with 1. e4.

Therefore, 1. e4 is bad.

Because Anderssen used it, and he lost. The World Chess Champion of the time, using 1. e4, and losing?

No as well. 1. e4 can be played in many different ways. I don't know every branch, so I can't say that 1. e4 loses all the time with perfect play. It also proves that even World Chess Champions are not perfect players; they blunder too.

So we can't fully conclude that one opening (1. g4) confines someone to a 100% loss rate, without seeing how all the games might go. Or else 1. e4 is a bad opening too.

8. "You cannot use logic with insufficient evidence" ++ Yes, I can, do, and should.

Again: solve this.

x = ?

1 + x = Ans

You can't make the answer certain, right? There is insufficient evidence. If you knew what x was, then you could definitively solve this. If you did not, then you can't. Same with chess.

9. "No perfect game ends in a win nor loss. All perfect games draw." ++ Yes.

So then perfect 1. g4 games always draw too? (Don't ignore the context.)

10. "Everything will balance out to zero with perfect play." ++ Yes, but not 1 g4? or 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?

Hmm... let's do some math.

-2.6 (Grob's Opening rated in points by Stockfish 11 Lite at depth 30 (Positive = White is winning, Negative = Black is winning)) - ∞ (Perfect Black move) + ∞ (Perfect White move) - ∞ (Perfect Black move) + ∞ (Perfect White play)...

That makes a 0. (What I mean by "perfect play" is "moves that steer that player onto a branch with the most wins possible". That's also why a whole branch needs to be solved to find the perfect move.)

Also, since you use AI for your arguments:

An updated version of Stockfish that I now use (can't find the version number) says that Grob's Opening is a -0.2 move at a depth of 2048, and Barnes' Opening is a -0.2 move, and the KPO is a -0.2 move (White starts at a +0.2 advantage for being able to choose moves that affect Black's responses before Black can attack). A consistent pattern was that some openings that start seemingly better (e.g. KPO, QPO, Hungarian), end consistently in draws, and some openings that start seemingly worse (e.g. Grob's, Barnes', Bird's) end consistently in, well, draws. (Also, I don't know if this is necessary information, but it also says that Larcen's Opening (1. b3) and Réti's Opening (1. Nf3) are good, at a 0.0 rating.)

(I would not recommend trying this out yourself if you don't have a spare Chromebook.)

11. "Basman defeated a grandmaster with it, proving that Grob's Opening is a viable option at high levels." ++ Yes, at IM level and/or short time controls the mistake 1 g4? is inconsequential as other mistakes will certainly follow. In a Candidates' tournament or in ICCF WC Finals 1 g4? means a guaranteed loss.

Guaranteed? We don't know all the branches of the move tree (see my full argument above, I'm not going to rewrite it too many times), so we can't guarantee. Anyways, through that logic, I would again be able to conclude that the KPO (1. e4) is a bad opening, because Anderssen (and many others) lost when using it. I think that neither Grob's Opening nor the KPO are bad openings, it's just that the KPO has been standing for so long as "World's Best Opening", and that Grob's Opening has been standing for so long as "World's Worst Opening", when it's really how well a person plays that decides whether a person wins or not for the rest of the game, and, well, as Capablanca said,

"Chess is a very logical game and it is the man who can reason most logically and profoundly in it that ought to win" - Capablanca

In other words, it doesn't matter whether you use Grob's Opening or not, but whether you're better than your opponent or not. So there is no "guaranteed" loss for someone against an opponent if they are better than that opponent. Magnus Carlsen and Michael Basman have beaten GMs with Grob's Opening, meaning that if you're good, you can use it. (Magnus has also beaten GMs with the Bongcloud Attack, but that's another topic.)

12. "There is always more than one good move." ++ No, sometimes there is only 1.

True. That's a mistake on my part; I meant to say "There is always at least one good move".

13. "other openings such as Anderssen's Opening and Clemenz's Opening." ++ Yes Anderssen's 1 a3 is sound, white plays as if black with extra tempo a3? Likewise Clemens 1 h3, though it weakens the king's side. IM Basman in later years gave up on 1 g4 and shifted to 1 h3, 2 a3.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1026344

Clemenz's Opening opens up a space on h2. After kingside castling, it provides the benefit of not being able to be back rank mated in that area, nor being attacked diagonally through f2 or h2, so White can release both rooks safely without having to repurpose attacking time moving a pawn, after Black has prepared one of their own attacks. I usually don't kingside castle (please don't comment on my strategy, it's not necessary), but I usually do more often after 1. h3.

After this, let's not talk anymore about Anderssen's Opening and Clemenz's Opening, and steer back on topic to Grob's Opening and Barnes' Opening.

13. 'As long as an opening is reputed to be weak it can be played' ++ Yes, at lower levels and in fast time controls you can play anything.

My next Google search:

"Were Savielly Tartakower, Michael Basman, and Magnus Carlsen players at a lower level because they used reputedly weak openings and won?"

14. "I am ready to lose a piece, it is just one piece." ++ 'The winning of a pawn among good players of even strength often means the winning of the game' - Capablanca

Again,

"To avoid losing a piece, many a person has lost the game." -Savielly Tartakower

So I will not avoid losing pieces; it is an inevitable part of high-level chess. I will sacrifice a pawn if it is to my positional advantage. Anyways, this would say that Capablanca might've been against offering gambits. This also ignores the positional advantage gained by most gambits being accepted.

A good example of a good sacrifice of pawns for development is the Danish Gambit Accepted, PGN [1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3]. White is far ahead in development, allowing time for more control of the centre, or, as how I would play it, a rapid f-file attack.

To Ilampohzhil25,

1. "Every great chess player had their beginnings. The strategy can be adapted." black plays Nc6 Na5 twice which is a waste of tempo, he can spend that time developing his pieces and most reasonable defences happen to block the threat anyway

So, I move the pieces around. I might play what Savielly Tartakower recommended, by putting a horse on e5. Or I'll do something else. Black and White can both improve. Besides, this is an older kind of my strategy, when I knew less. I've changed some moves, but the main element of attacking the f7 (or g7 / h7 after ks. castling, or b7 after qs. castling) and giving the king less and less places to run is still there.

2. most players would play something similar to what i have here as black infact, they would probably play d5 and prevent Bc4 in the first place

The original PGN was for when the strategy was more risky and when I was not as good at chess as I am now. The strategy that I usually play nowadays is more like this:

[1. a3 e5 2. e3 d5 3. c4 dxc4 4. Bxc4 Nc6 5. Ba2 Nf6 6. Qb3 Na5 7. Qxf7#]

Although, sometimes (but kind of rarely), some people offer a bishop trade with [4. Bxc4 Be6], at which point I would accept the trade with [5. Bxe6 fxe6]. I would then try to catch them off guard with [6. Qh5+], expecting my opponent to respond with a block [6. Qh5+ g6], at which point I would attack for material [7. Qxe5]. Now, the rook is under threat. If Black manages to see the threat, Black should block it by [7. Qxe5 Nf6]. Then I would take the other pawn by [8. Qxe6+]. I expect Black to block it by [8. Qxe6+ Be7]. After that, I would play [9. Nf3]. There are now too many ways for Black to respond, so I usually adapt at this point. But, if Black does not play [9. Nf3 h3] or threaten the queen in some way, I would play [10. Ng5]. I expect Black to kick the horse with [10. Ng5 h3]. After that, I would fork Black's queen and rook with [11. Nf7], exploiting the fact that f7 is initially only defended by Black's king, and when a piece is defended there, Black's king can't take it.

At this point, there are too many different ways to play, so I think that you should give your counters before I continue. Anyways, we should also probably get back on topic to Grob's Opening, not attacking f7.

3. if you can scale a logic to all the cases and prove that the scaling is valid, even if you dont have evidence for each part of it, you may be able to prove the entire logic to be true

There's a difference between incomplete evidence and insufficient evidence. In some cases, you can scale logic and prove it, that is true. That means that you have incomplete evidence, but it is sufficient evidence to prove the logic. So, thank you for pointing that out. I mean "insufficient", not "incomplete", which is my mistake.

Insufficient evidence will always be incomplete (e.g. 1 + x = ?), but incomplete evidence will not always be incomplete (e.g. finding the third angle of a triangle if angle #1 is, say, 102°, and angle #2 was, say, 59°, there is incomplete evidence, but it is sufficient for finding out that the last angle is 19°).

(Invalid evidence, though, would be if angle #2 was 59° C.)

Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

4. f3 d5 f4 is the exact same as d4 f5 because: the pieces of the next moving player are at the same spots the pieces of the other player are at the same spots castling/en passant rules are same all the strategies you can do on d4 f5 can be replicated flawlessly on f3 d5 f4

I don't remember if I said anything contradictory to this. In this case, White has "skipped" their first turn and played a colour-inverted Dutch Defence. So, yes, this is right.

5. "No perfect game ends in a win nor loss. All perfect games draw." unless you start in a position that is a win for one player then, the perfect game from there is a win for that player

All moves before that, then, are imperfect, and tilt the game in that one player's favour. When the game is tilted far enough that a player has branches to choose from with a 100% winning rate, that makes it a solved game. But, that takes quite a bit of time to reach. Not possible from one imperfect move.

If you'd like to prove that Grob's Opening is a solved Black win, then please show me the winning percentages with every branch, because it'd be cool to see the best way how someone could play Grob's Opening, and whether I should use it or not.

6. "There is always more than one good move." i take your queen with mine you can recapture only with your rook no checks now, tell me, are there more than 1 good moves here?

As I've said, that's a mistake on my part. I mean that there's at least one good move. So, from this point on, please instead reference this corrected sentence:

"There is always at least one good move."

But, yeah, my mistake. When there's only one valid move, that's the only good move.

7. about the original statement, g4 weakens the kingside permanently, and the king will take a lot of time to go to the queenside it has some trappish lines, but the Bxa8 one is unclear because of how important whites bishop is black can attack if white goes 0-0

PGN: [1. g4 d5 2. g2 Bxg4 3. c4 dxc4 4. Bxb7 Nd7 5. Bxa8 Qxa8]

1. whites rook is attacked,

White plays [6. f3]. Black's queen's attack is blocked, and Black's g4 bishop is threatened.

2. his king wont find safety anywhere,

White's king is just in a safe position in the centre of the board, and can still qs. castle.

3. black has an extra pawn

Well, White has six points: one rook (5) and one pawn (1). Black has five points: one bishop (3), and two pawns (1) + (1). Isn't White winning in material terms by one pawn?

4. and 0-0 is safe for him,

I think you meant O-O, not 0-0. But, it's not necessary for White to ks. castle all the time. I usually castle qs. to connect the queen and the rook after developing the bishop and the horse and playing Qd2 after playing d4.

5. white has less development less space...

Is this a typo? or did you mean that this is an advantage for White? Because less of less is more, just like how -1 - -1 is more than just -1.

6. your best case scenario is this,

I would argue that [1. g4 a6 2. e3 a5 3. Bc4 a4 4. Qf3 a3 5. Qxf7#] is my best possible scenario, but if we're talking about the best reasonable scenarioes, then I would argue that [1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 Bxg4 3. b3 e5 4. d4] is an example of one of the best reasonable scenarioes, meaning that there is more than one good scenario.

7. otherwise "the game goes on" with white a pawn down

Question: are you against White offering gambits? There's the Danish Gambit Accepted [1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3] where White is far ahead in development, but Black is one pawn up on White. Is White losing in this case? Because White is farther in development.

White can also play [3. Bf3] to trade bishops. If Black accepts the trade [3. Bf3 Bxf3], White can develop their horse with [4. Nxf3]. White is down one pawn, but has developed a piece. (This time, I sacrificed a pawn to develop one of my own pieces. White is ahead positionally because Black must now play a move to develop. If Black denies the trade, then Black must make a move in retreat (backwards, into safer but less active positions), giving White extra time to develop with a move such as [5. d4], allowing White to control two diagonals.

8. this line isnt even close to being a win for white as you said, "To avoid losing a piece, many a person has lost the game." -Savielly Tartakower

Okay. I have now made my sacrifice, and lost my piece. I didn't avoid it. Just like the Danish Gambit Accepted, I can now develop and control after trades or denied trades.

The position is not close to being a win for White because the game is not done yet.

In the case of Grob's Gambit Accepted, Fritz's Gambit Accepted, after White kicks and blocks through [6. f3], and Black's bishop moves somewhere, White can easily catch up through moves such as [7. Nc3], [7. Na3] (threatens the c4 pawn), [7. d3] (c4 pawn threat), [7. Qa4] (pins the horse and also threatens the pawn), [7. d4] (gives space for development for the bishop, en passant offer, otherwise blocks Black's horse on d7), and [7. b3] (c4 pawn threat).

With this line, after [6. f3], with White being up one point and easily able to make good development moves, I actually believe that White is in a winning position with right moves, but an easily blunder-able one too. I also think that it's too early to decide who's going to win yet in the game, anyways.

---

Also, could you possibly find out who Grob's Gambit Accepted, Fritz's Gambit [1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 Bxg4 3. c4] is named after? Whenever I search "Who is Grob's Gambit Accepted, Fritz's Gambit named after?", the answers are always about Grob's Opening, Grob's Gambit [1. g4 d5 2. Bg2] or Englund's Gambit [1. d4 e5], which is not what I'm looking for. Any help would be appreciated.

Forgot to add:

To Ilampozhil25,

n. black can attack if white goes 0-0

I would not suggest ks. castling after Grob's Opening, anyways.

@41

"You can't say that we fully know the effectiveness of a chess move without the whole branch."
++ Yes I can. 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5? loses for white, no whole branch needed. 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white, no whole branch needed. 1 g4? loses for white, no whole branch needed.

"Memorising moves gives you more time to think on more complicated positions"
++ The better player always beats the better theoretician. The better player must invest time to find moves while the better theoretician still relies on his memory. However, as soon as the better theoretician is out of his book knowledge, he has to find his moves himself and he makes mistakes. Moreover, the better player is in a state of deep concentration as he has to find theory moves, while the theoretician is in a lazy remembering mode instead of in a concentrated thinking mode. The Honfi-Tal and Capablanca-Marshall games illustrate that.

"Grob's Opening has been standing for so long as World's Worst Opening"
++ Yes, 1 g4? is the worst of the 20 possible first white moves and the only one that loses by force with best play by both sides. However, at lower levels and in fast time controls it is playable in practice, as more mistakes will follow from both sides, so it does not matter you make the first mistake, as long as you do not make the last.

#42

1) putting your knight on e5 requires some level of control on the position

attacking the king wherever he is in general is a decent strategy however, but can be defended if done crudely (without control on the center)

2) 

3) you can discuss with tygxc if their logic is insufficient or not, i leave here

4) tygxc said white can play f4 as the second move after f3 to anything except e5 and that it would work (i think?)

you agree here, so this is done

5) i do not want to prove grobs opening as a black win

you can go to databases and engines to find the best evaluations for white in the grobs opening and maybe play those

6) there is always atleast one good move

if the definition of good move is "move which keeps the evaluation of the position the same", then yes

if it is "move which cannot be losing" then no, in losing positions all moves lose by definition (this may or may not include 1 g4 and i do not care about continuing that discussion)

7) a) the knight on g1 is awkward

b) the center of the board can be attacked with enough pieces on the board (or so i've heard)

if white moves the e or d pawns then the kings position becomes weaker

not to forget the h4-e1 diagonal

c) i meant for the exchange, my mistake

d) blacks 0-0 is safe

for white, neither castling is that safe, and the center can be attacked

e) less development *and* less space, sorry

(-1) + (-1) = -2

f)

just play g3 then

g) yes i am slightly against gambits

however, in the danish white has more space, more development, initiative and targets to attack

black is the one who might be stuck in the center

the danish offers more than the grob does

h) grob and danish cant easily be compared like this

black is arguably the real gambiter in the grob here, with attacking chances, more development for less material

and if we're talking about the non fritz grob, then question: what compensation does white have for the pawn

i have already stated the compensation present in the danish

8) if i search fritz i am getting only the engine, it is probably some old master named fritz who used this opening

9) if not 0-0, then what

To tygxc,

1. "You can't say that we fully know the effectiveness of a chess move without the whole branch." ++ Yes I can. 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5? loses for white, no whole branch needed. 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white, no whole branch needed. 1 g4? loses for white, no whole branch needed.

Then, prove your scaling.

[1. e4 Nf6 2. Qh5?] sacrifices 9 points for (apparent) no advantage.

[1. e4 e5 2. Ba6] sacrifices 3 points for (apparent) no advantage.

[1. g4] doesn't sacrifice any material.

[1. g4 d5 2. Bg2] sacrifices a pawn for control of a diagonal.

There is a point for some moves, but not for others.

2. "Memorising moves gives you more time to think on more complicated positions"
++ The better player always beats the better theoretician. The better player must invest time to find moves while the better theoretician still relies on his memory. However, as soon as the better theoretician is out of his book knowledge, he has to find his moves himself and he makes mistakes. Moreover, the better player is in a state of deep concentration as he has to find theory moves, while the theoretician is in a lazy remembering mode instead of in a concentrated thinking mode. The Honfi-Tal and Capablanca-Marshall games illustrate that.

a. The better player always beats the better theoretician.

Then, the better theoretician is not using his time to his advantage.

b. The better player must invest time to find moves while the better theoretician still relies on his memory. However, as soon as the better theoretician is out of his book knowledge, he has to find his moves himself and he makes mistakes.

Again, the theoretician is not using his time to his advantage.

c. Moreover, the better player is in a state of deep concentration as he has to find theory moves, while the theoretician is in a lazy remembering mode instead of in a concentrated thinking mode.

The theoretician only saves time for later, not being lazy. Many animals save their food for later, for when they need it, so we can save our time for when we need it. A lazy theoretician who does not study far enough is as bad as a lazy player who does not read the board far enough.

(d. The Honfi-Tal and Capablanca-Marshall games illustrate that.)

(I don't know the situation of these games, so I can't comment on them.)

3. "Grob's Opening has been standing for so long as World's Worst Opening" ++ Yes, 1 g4? is the worst of the 20 possible first white moves and the only one that loses by force with best play by both sides. However, at lower levels and in fast time controls it is playable in practice, as more mistakes will follow from both sides, so it does not matter you make the first mistake, as long as you do not make the last.

Magnus Carlsen is not at a lower level. And he played it. So Grob's Opening is playable at higher levels. He also played Barnes' Opening before, as well.

Either he's at a lower level, or you can play Grob's Opening at higher levels.

To Ilampohzhil25,

1. putting your knight on e5 requires some level of control on the position | attacking the king wherever he is in general is a decent strategy however, but can be defended if done crudely (without control on the center)

My opponent's king will not always be in the centre. So neither will my attack be.

2. [game sc]

This strategy was for attacking f7. I was talking about how Barnes' Opening leaves f2 vulnerable to attack. Although, the strategy was more of a reason than a topic, so I'd consider it as off-topic discussion now, so let's stop mentioning it.

3. 4) tygxc said white can play f4 as the second move after f3 to anything except e5 and that it would work (i think?)

Playing 2. f4 after 1. f3 is not always the best idea after g5 or e3 either. Anyways, that's two turns with White not developing any pieces, so I'd say that I would probably take the time to develop first.

4. 5) i do not want to prove grobs opening as a black win | you can go to databases and engines to find the best evaluations for white in the grobs opening and maybe play those

Huh. I might try that. The engine's moves might not fit my strategy, though.

5. 6) there is always atleast one good move | if the definition of good move is "move which keeps the evaluation of the position the same", then yes | if it is "move which cannot be losing" then no, in losing positions all moves lose by definition (this may or may not include 1 g4 and i do not care about continuing that discussion)

True. If Black has just his king, and White has two queens and one king, and if no side blunders, there's no chance of a Black victory, and there is no winning moves for Black to change the game's rate.

This is an example of a tilted position, where it's a destined victory for one side if there are no blunders. It's for White in this case. I would like to say that 1. g4 is too early for a tilted game at loss for White, but tygxc argues otherwise.

6. 7) a) the knight on g1 is awkward | b) the center of the board can be attacked with enough pieces on the board (or so i've heard) | if white moves the e or d pawns then the kings position becomes weaker | not to forget the h4-e1 diagonal | c) i meant for the exchange, my mistake | d) blacks 0-0 is safe | for white, neither castling is that safe, and the center can be attacked | e) less development *and* less space, sorry | (-1) + (-1) = -2

I'm missing context. What piece of text are you responding to?

7. [game sc]

Why is b3 played? I'm a bit confused about this strategy. Shouldn't White offer Fritz's Gambit?

8. g) yes i am slightly against gambits | however, in the danish white has more space, more development, initiative and targets to attack | black is the one who might be stuck in the center | the danish offers more than the grob does

The Danish Gambit Accepted only shows its benefits after White accepts both Centre Game and the Danish Gambit. Both offer defended pawns, and Black may not want to trade pawns while losing control of the centre. It is true that the Danish Gambit Accepted variation offers more control of diagonals than Grob's Gambit Accepted does, but it's just that GGA takes less time than the DGA does.

Grob's Gambit, though, offers up a seemingly free piece, to control a diagonal with the bishop. It's a distraction for Black, stopping Black from attacking g2 or elsewhere by baiting. Fritz's Gambit's Pawn appears to be free as well, making it more likely for someone to accept the trick gambit.

9. [game sc]

This is just as if Black played the Indian Game [1. d4 Nf6]. In the 1. g4 bishop trade situation, White can attack e5 settle his horse on it. In the Indian Game, Black can attack e4 and settle his horse on it. It's just a similar situation, with switched colours, and just that both sides are missing a bishop, and White is missing a pawn, and White can ks. castle (not that I would recommend it in this situation). I don't see any major light-squared weaknesses for White, other than the diagonal with White's rook on h1, which can easily be moved.

10. h) grob and danish cant easily be compared like this

True. GGA:FGA is easier to reach than the DGA, though.

11. black is arguably the real gambiter in the grob here, with attacking chances, more development for less material | and if we're talking about the non fritz grob, then question: what compensation does white have for the pawn | i have already stated the compensation present in the danish

White gains half-control of a diagonal without counterattack by offering Grob's Gambit. As I've already said, it's not as big as the two-diagonals advantage gained by the DGA, but it's a lot easier to reach. White can pin and attack in one move in the 1. g4 situation, through Qa4.

12. 8) if i search fritz i am getting only the engine, it is probably some old master named fritz who used this opening

I'm not sure, but I think that Fritz's Gambit was named after Fritz Englund, after whom the Englund Gambit [1. d4 e5] was also named after.

13. 9) if not 0-0, then what

Again, I think that you mean O-O, not 0-0.

The only other option, of course, qs. castling (O-O-O).

What I find interesting about this game is that Black underpromoted once, and White underpromoted twice to prevent losing an advantage by the promoted pawn getting taken by a rook. The trades weren't worth it, so the pieces weren't taken. If those pawns were fully promoted instead, they would've been taken. They weren't bad moves, because White later takes a rook with one and delivers a checkmate with the other, and Black uses the knight to attack with a check. I wouldn't've thought of any of these underpromotions, so I guess I now have a new idea for my endgames.

(This is not proof that 1. g4 and the bishop trade were good. I just ran it once and will put more games on the forum later.)

#46

1) "My opponent's king will not always be in the centre. So neither will my attack be."

you need control of a part of the board to be able to attack it

this is off topic, but going back to the "reason" bit - if you play e3 after barnes you can block one method of attacking

2)"so I'd say that I would probably take the time to develop first."

agreed

barnes isnt that good

3) "I'm missing context. What piece of text are you responding to"

PGN: [1. g4 d5 2. g2 Bxg4 3. c4 dxc4 4. Bxb7 Nd7 5. Bxa8 Qxa8] start here in #42

4)"Why is b3 played? I'm a bit confused about this strategy. Shouldn't White offer Fritz's Gambit?"

you mentioned it in "i have other good scenarios"

5)"The Danish Gambit Accepted only shows its benefits after White accepts both Centre Game and the Danish Gambit."

black right

not accepting centre game is... bad (you allowed white to get e4 and d4)

declining danish gambit is possible but the game just continues

6)"it's just that GGA takes less time than the DGA does."

sure, but it has less advantages from what i can see

7)"to control a diagonal with the bishop."

1 g3 does that without sacrifice

8)" Fritz's Gambit's Pawn appears to be free as well, making it more likely for someone to accept the trick gambit."

as i mentioned above, black has compensation for the material

9)"I don't see any major light-squared weaknesses for White, other than the diagonal with White's rook on h1, which can easily be moved.

h3

also, the h pawn itself is isolated

the traded black bishop also tends to be the bad bishop

10)"White gains half-control of a diagonal without counterattack by offering Grob's Gambit. As I've already said, it's not as big as the two-diagonals advantage gained by the DGA, but it's a lot easier to reach. White can pin and attack in one move in the 1. g4 situation, through Qa4."

1 g3, again

its easier to reach, but even e4 e5 d4 exd4 c3 d3 lines white gains some central lines for a pawn (more compensation than in the grob)

and, Qa4 where

11)"Again, I think that you mean O-O, not 0-0.

The only other option, of course, qs. castling (O-O-O)."

0-0 also denotes castling 

and queenside castling there is c4 in fritz lines and otherwise it just takes time to prepare

____

from my pov you think too highly of the grob gambit (and vice versa i assume) which is the main opinion difference here

the underpromotion thing is interesting but flawed

when a promoted pawn is immediately captured, its a trade of the capturing piece and the pawn

you can also think of it like this:

white gains *value of promoted piece*-1 points

then he gains (or loses if its negative) *value of capturing piece*-*value of promoted piece* points

as you can see, if these two happen one after another, its just *value of capturing piece*-1 points gained by white

or if black doesnt capture, *value of promoted piece*-1 points

if the value of the promoted piece is larger, then white will gain *value of capturing piece*-1 points if black captures (correct option)

if it is lower, white will gain *value of promoted piece*-1 points if black doesnt capture (right option as the value of the promoted piece is lower by definition, and makes this option worse for white)

@47

Just play Gotham chess openings lol. There's a reason why I'm 1800

To Ilampohzhil25,

1. you need control of a part of the board to be able to attack it

Well, that just means that I just need to control where the king is, right?

2. this is off topic, but going back to the "reason" bit - if you play e3 after barnes you can block one method of attacking

True. But e3 alone (van't Kruijs' Opening) is more productive than 1. f3 ... 2. e3, right? Because White's queen and horse have their development limited by the pawn on f3.

3. you mentioned it in "i have other good scenarios"

I don't remember and can't find where I said that, but I guess I just forgot where I said it in this forum. Did I just say that I had other good scenarioes, or did I actually list scenarioes?

4. not accepting centre game is... bad (you allowed white to get e4 and d4)

Well, what if someone doesn't like playing the King's Pawn Game? What if someone plays the Scandinavian Defence, or the Sicilian Defence, or Nimsowitsch's Defence? At which point you can't reach the Danish Gambit. To Grob's Opening, most people play d5 or e5 in response, which makes it a lot easier to play Grob's Gambit or play this Scandi-like situation [1. g4 e5 2. d4]. Most of the time, responses are more similar to Grob's Opening but vary more to the KPO.

5. 1 g3 does that without sacrifice

I kind of like playing the Lasker Simul Special as a response to the Hungarian Opening. I'm not sure if the Lasker Simul Special is some kind of joke or some bad move to show off, but if White fianchettoes the kingside bishop, I just threaten the pawn in front with [2. Bg2 h4]. If White takes it, I take it with the rook with [3. gxh4 Rxh4] (I know it sounds beginnerish, but I usually don't kingside castle so it works for me). If White kicks with [4. Nf3], I just play [4. ... Rh5]. White can't kick it again in less than two moves, so I like using that time to develop.

If White takes the time to develop with Nf3 instead of playing gxh4, I just kick with h3.

6. as i mentioned above, black has compensation for the material

Black has a material advantage directly after accepting Fritz's Gambit, but loses it right after 4. Bxb7 Nd7 5. Bxa8 Qxa8 6. f3. What's Black's compensation for losing a rook (otherwise just being a pawn down)? If I missed where you mentioned the compensation, though, that's my bad.

7. h3 | also, the h pawn itself is isolated | the traded black bishop also tends to be the bad bishop

a. h3 isn't particularly vulnerable to attack in this situation, since the light-squared bishops were traded.

b. I do admit that the h-file pawn is quite vulnerable if Black forces or tricks White into moving the horse on f3 or the rook on h1. But something would have to pull it away, and I can't think of anything that pulls either piece away that doesn't involve a sacrifice that nullifies the point advantage of taking h2.

c. Could you define "bad bishop"? Does it refer to trapped bishops, or something else? I'm not sure if I got the definition right.

8. 1 g3, again | its easier to reach, but even e4 e5 d4 exd4 c3 d3 lines white gains some central lines for a pawn (more compensation than in the grob) | and, Qa4 where

a. Again, Lasker Simul Special strategy.

b. Advance Variation of the Danish Gambit Declined? Honestly, I haven't been a fan of declining gambits with advance variation, just because I feel like I can use that time for something else. That move could've been used for more development, but instead, d3 just puts that pawn under threat.

c. Unfinished sentence?

9. 0-0 also denotes castling | and queenside castling there is c4 in fritz lines and otherwise it just takes time to prepare

a. Huh. I thought that castling notation only used O-O, not 0-0. Thanks for the information.

b. In Fritz's Gambit lines, White can play Nc3 or Na3 to protect c2.

c. from my pov you think too highly of the grob gambit (and vice versa i assume) which is the main opinion difference here

Well, from my point of view, the King's Pawn Game is also thought too highly of, as Black's pawn can get threatened quickly. With the same logic, I would also say that that's also a vulnerability of the KPO itself.

Black would not trade a rook for a bishop in most situations. That's a loss of two points for Black.

To tygxc,

I didn't mean to use that game as an argument point. I just wanted to say that the game ended out very interesting with opposite-sided castling and three instances of underpromotion. Sure, it might turn out differently on your end with your chess engine, but I was just saying that it was interesting.

I admit now that it was kind of an off-topic mention, so let's stop talking about it now. It's more of a "this game I ran was interesting" than a "this move set is good because...". Anyways, I can't support my argument with just one game run by a chess engine.

To XXX-101,

What's a Gotham chess opening?

Just to steer us back on topic, let's stop talking solely about how Grob's Opening is bad. It may be sub-optimal, sure, but I'd appreciate some conversations on whether Barnes' Opening is any better.

Also, just in case someone else comments, I will ignore forum posts that say against using either opening, since the topic is for comparing either opening. I don't really want to use too much of my time on writing a short response to multiple people saying that both openings are bad and that I shouldn't play either.

What does stockfish think of white's first move ?

g4 is the worst move, f3 the second worst

@52

"I can't support my argument with just one game run by a chess engine"
++ Yes, you can. If you find a line that draws or wins for white after 1 g4?,
then it is up to black to find an improvement that wins. That is how chess analysis works.

1)"Well, that just means that I just need to control where the king is, right?"

you may/may not do that in your opening or when playing against the barnes or grob

this part is kind of irrelevant though

2)"True. But e3 alone (van't Kruijs' Opening) is more productive than 1. f3 ... 2. e3, right? Because White's queen and horse have their development limited by the pawn on f3."

yes, it is

as i have already said, barnes isnt a good opening

in the barnes, your best scenario is a worse version of some other opening in some way

in the grob, it is a completely unique opening which is probably worse than the barnes, but its uniqueness gives a reason to play it over other openings 

3)"Did I just say that I had other good scenarioes, or did I actually list scenarioes?"

you mentioned the b3 line as one other good scenario (an example)

this doesnt matter much though

4 a)"Well, what if someone doesn't like playing the King's Pawn Game?"

then why would they play 1...e5

b)"What if someone plays the Scandinavian Defence, or the Sicilian Defence, or Nimsowitsch's Defence? At which point you can't reach the Danish Gambit."

this isnt relevant to the discussion of how good the grob and danish are

also, if black doesnt go d5 (or d6), grob isnt a gambit and white gets only some control of the diagonal anyway (and his kingside is somewhat damaged, and queenside castling takes time)

c)"or play this Scandi-like situation [1. g4 e5 2. d4]. "

i have never heard anyone advocating for this

g4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qa4 d5 looks like good play and i just ask, what is the pawn on g4 doing?

this is a reverse scandinavian with g4 just added, almost like a waiting move

d)"Most of the time, responses are more similar to Grob's Opening but vary more to the KPO."

this is because grobs opening is rarer and people tend to stick to their white opening, but black can do many many things vs the grob (a c6 d5 system in particular negates the bishop on g2)

5)"

"I kind of like playing the Lasker Simul Special as a response to the Hungarian Opening. I'm not sure if the Lasker Simul Special is some kind of joke or some bad move to show off, but if White fianchettoes the kingside bishop, I just threaten the pawn in front with [2. Bg2 h4]. If White takes it, I take it with the rook with [3. gxh4 Rxh4] (I know it sounds beginnerish, but I usually don't kingside castle so it works for me). If White kicks with [4. Nf3], I just play [4. ... Rh5]. White can't kick it again in less than two moves, so I like using that time to develop.

If White takes the time to develop with Nf3 instead of playing gxh4, I just kick with h3"

my incredibly funny (in this context) other suggestion for white after 2...h4 is 3 g4

black has played h5 h4 which justifies it for me

the line you give, white is ahead in development anyway

6)"Black has a material advantage directly after accepting Fritz's Gambit, but loses it right after 4. Bxb7 Nd7 5. Bxa8 Qxa8 6. f3. What's Black's compensation for losing a rook (otherwise just being a pawn down)? If I missed where you mentioned the compensation, though, that's my bad."

you did miss it, but i will mention it again

white has dubious king safety, less development, less space and black has a safe king if he kingside castles

7 a)"h3 isn't particularly vulnerable to attack in this situation, since the light-squared bishops were traded"

i can imagine blacks queen attacking through that line

b)"I do admit that the h-file pawn is quite vulnerable if Black forces or tricks White into moving the horse on f3 or the rook on h1. But something would have to pull it away, and I can't think of anything that pulls either piece away that doesn't involve a sacrifice that nullifies the point advantage of taking h2."

the rook h1 is very inactive there and usually goes somewhere else on its own

and then the knight f3 is the only defender and it can be lured using one of black's knights, or white might move it somewhere or trade it; knights are usually busy pieces

c)"Could you define "bad bishop"?"

in a lot of positions one side has most of its pawns on dark squares and the other has the pawns on light squares

the bishop that has the same color as the square of its side's pawns is called a 'bad bishop'

there are many levels of badness ranging from not that important to very important and here, while it isnt that important, the black light bishop is either locked in or if it is moved outside it can be attacked by whites knights

8)"Advance Variation of the Danish Gambit Declined? Honestly, I haven't been a fan of declining gambits with advance variation, just because I feel like I can use that time for something else. That move could've been used for more development, but instead, d3 just puts that pawn under threat."

thing is if black does anything else except accepting or Qe7 (pinning the e pawn) white can take back the d pawn and has 2 central pawns

meanwhile after d3 Bxd3 black isnt that much behind in development and white has an annoying pawn c3

"Unfinished sentence?"

sorry, i was asking where were you talking about Qa4

9)"In Fritz's Gambit lines, White can play Nc3 or Na3 to protect c2."

Na3?

you want to keep the knight passive to defend c2?

if white plays defensively black can attack (like in a gambit, which he logically is the one doing at this point)

10)"Well, from my point of view, the King's Pawn Game is also thought too highly of, as Black's pawn can get threatened quickly. With the same logic, I would also say that that's also a vulnerability of the KPO itself."

i would disagree, saying that black can defend it just as quickly

this is very offtopic however

_____

seeing your last statement, look above for my answer to 2

objectively, the barnes might be better, being easier to consolidate to a slightly worse version of another opening; but the grob has uniquer positions which might make it appealing to some people

this also gives it more use practically, with a subsection of people doing well with it and it fitting their own style (as compared to the barnes where i cant see a unique style of player who would want to play it)

To tygxc,

1. "I can't support my argument with just one game run by a chess engine" ++ Yes, you can. If you find a line that draws or wins for white after 1 g4?, then it is up to black to find an improvement that wins. That is how chess analysis works.

Well, moves are good if their move branches end in majority wins for that player. But, chess engines can't see every single end of every move branch, so chess engines usually use material advantages to rate moves. Sometimes, more than one move gains the same amount of material at a certain depth, but may lose more material later on.

Therefore, we can either get a true-and-pure win percentage by checking every end of a move branch, or we can run multiple games to try each move. But, you suggest that we don't need to do either... and yet you still ran a different game ending with a seven-men endgame table base win for Black.

Anyways, since engines use material advantages to calculate ratings, Grob's Opening gets a very low rating at lower depths, since it almost immediately sacrifices a pawn or loses time and other material through defending it.

It's like an immediate gambit offer for positional advantages, like all other gambits, but a lot earlier. I would say that it's still as good as most gambits are. Lots of people like gambits (the Queen's Gambit and Centre Game are two of the most popular), but there are some gambits on the side that I like, such as Grob's Gambit, Fritz's Gambit, and some others. Sure, there are some worse gambits, such as the Irish Gambit, and maybe the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit and Englund's Gambit, but there are lots of good gambits too.

To Ilampozhil25,

1. you may/may not do that in your opening or when playing against the barnes or grob | this part is kind of irrelevant though

Grob's Opening is an opening that I like to use against players who really like to ks. castle. I like to attack their kingside area after they castle, and threaten their kingside horse right after it develops.

2. this isnt relevant to the discussion of how good the grob and danish are

I think it is. Grob's Gambit is a lot easier to reach than the Danish Gambit, because of the many possible and popular responses there are to the KPO, than the two most common responses to Grob's Opening (d5/e5). I would win all the time if people played [1.f3 ... 2. g4] as their opening all the time, but I don't find many people playing it at all (and most probably nobody's playing it intentionally). The benefits of the Danish Gambit get nullified as soon as someone does not play the King's Pawn Game.

3. also, if black doesnt go d5 (or d6), grob isnt a gambit and white gets only some control of the diagonal anyway (and his kingside is somewhat damaged, and queenside castling takes time)

It is true that queenside castling at minimum takes two more turns than kingside castling does. But, if Black does not threaten White's pawn on g4, White can use that to control the kingside a bit more, motivating Black to castle queenside.

Anyways, if Black plays d6, White can still play Bg2, and doom Black's a1 rook, if Black accepts or does not block the diagonal.

4. g4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qa4 d5 looks like good play and i just ask, what is the pawn on g4 doing? | this is a reverse scandinavian with g4 just added, almost like a waiting move

Again, the pawn is there to try to establish a grip on the kingside. Sure, it can be easily taken, but it can also easily be defended as well. The pawn's additional grip on the kingside can help an attack there if Black decides to kingside castle.

5. the line you give, white is ahead in development anyway

Black can still develop quickly. White has one more piece developed, (potentially two after White's next turn) but still can't attack Black's rook in less than two moves. If White decides to ks. castle and not attack the rook, Black can use it to threaten checkmate, or at least sneak in some places, or block pawns.

Anyways, this strategy line is not the best, since I've only played against the Hungarian Opening three times, and played the Lasker Simul Special only twice. I haven't had anyone play the Hungarian Opening against me since then.

6. you did miss it, but i will mention it again | white has dubious king safety, less development, less space and black has a safe king if he kingside castles

I do believe that it is true that White's king is slightly vulnerable in its position, and must try to kingside castle sometime soon at least. But, I think that White is able to catch up on turn 7 after kicking Black's bishop.

Sorry for missing it.

7. i can imagine blacks queen attacking through that line | the rook h1 is very inactive there and usually goes somewhere else on its own | and then the knight f3 is the only defender and it can be lured using one of black's knights, or white might move it somewhere or trade it; knights are usually busy pieces

What does Black's queen accomplish by settling on h3? The rook can easily be moved to g1, and the pawn is still defended by the horse. Anything that I can think of that is a good trade for White to accept nullifies gaining the pawn on h2.

8. sorry, i was asking where were you talking about Qa4

I was talking about playing Qa4 as a viable development move to play after Fritz's Gambit Accepted, 4. Bxb7 Nd7 5. Bxa8 Qxa8 6. f3 Bf5, because of how it threatened Black's pawn on c4, and also pinned Black's horse on d7. I don't remember mentioning it anywhere else.

9. Na3? | you want to keep the knight passive to defend c2?

It's just that Na3 also threatens Black's pawn on c4 after Fritz's Gambit Accepted. The horse is in a position to accomplish two different tasks, so as soon as one becomes unavailable, it can do the other. I don't think that that's completely passive, but it might not be as active as usual, because of how it stands like a guard in its position.

10. i would disagree, saying that black can defend it just as quickly | this is very offtopic however

Same with Grob's Opening. White can defend the pawn just as quickly as a threat comes. It's just that Grob's Opening's g4 pawn can't be attacked as many times as e5 or e4 can be. Grob's Opening's g4 pawn can move forward in every situation except for 1. g4 g5, so it's not as easy to trap.

11. objectively, the barnes might be better, being easier to consolidate to a slightly worse version of another opening; but the grob has uniquer positions which might make it appealing to some people | this also gives it more use practically, with a subsection of people doing well with it and it fitting their own style (as compared to the barnes where i cant see a unique style of player who would want to play it)

a. It's possible to transpose to worse or equal versions of other openings with Barnes' Opening, but the only problem with that is that your opponent might've studied the position more than you have, or you'll just be in a worse version of a normally equal setup.

b. Playing rarer openings avoids an opponent's study advantages. It isn't the main reason why I play Grob's Opening, but it is an advantage.

c. The only kinds of people I see playing Barnes' Opening are the kinds of players who stake a claim on the centre with 1. f3 ... 2. c3, players who play e4 after just to defend it early, or those other players who use the Hammerschlag just to show off that they can play well while artificially castling. All three are strange and pretty rare, but I think that Grob's Opening is even rarer. (Has anyone ever played 1. f3 ... 2. c3 against you? For me, that's only happened once.)

I searched up who is GothamChess, and I found a chess questions video. When he was asked what the worst opening was, he responded with "I think that f3 is the worst opening, because it first of all doesn't develop any pieces, makes your king vulnerable, and blocks the natural position of your kingside knight.".

@53

"Grob's Opening gets a very low rating at lower depths"
++ And an even lower rating at higher depths.

"there are lots of good gambits"
++ Queen's Gambit and Catalan for white, Two Knights Defense and Marshall Attack for black.

To tygxc,

1. "Grob's Opening gets a very low rating at lower depths" ++ And an even lower rating at higher depths.

At higher depths that I've tried (previously mentioned 2048 depth), Grob's Opening gets a -0.2 rating (White starts with +0.2 advantage), and usually draws. It's because Grob's Gambit's pawn sacrifice benefits only show up later. I would rather not cook my Chromebook again on Stockfish at depth 2048, though.

2. "there are lots of good gambits" ++ Queen's Gambit and Catalan for white, Two Knights Defense and Marshall Attack for black.

I don't understand how the QGD: Catalan Opening, the Italian Game: Two Knights' Defence, and the Ruy López Opening: Marshall Attack are related to this. I was talking about good gambits, not good openings and good defences, so please explain what this has to do with the topic.

I know that I said that chess engines were not perfect, but I think they certainly are good enough, and I wanted to try the analysis method that tygxc said.